Improving the Science in Plastic Surgery.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
19
4
2022
medline:
28
5
2022
entrez:
18
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In 1906, George Bernard Shaw criticized the medical profession for its lack of science and compassion. Since then, advances in both medical and surgical subspecialties have improved quality of patient care. Unfortunately, the reporting of these advances is variable and is frequently biased. Such limitations lead to false claims, wasted research dollars, and inability to synthesize and apply evidence to practice. It was hoped that the introduction of evidence-based medicine would improve the quality of health care and decrease health dollar waste. For this to occur, however, credible "best evidence"-one of the components of evidence-based medicine-is required. This article provides a framework for credible research evidence in plastic surgery, as follows: (1) stating the clinical research question, (2) selecting the proper study design, (3) measuring critical (important) outcomes, (4) using the correct scale(s) to measure the outcomes, (5) including economic evaluations with clinical (effectiveness) studies, and (6) reporting a study's results using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research, or EQUATOR, guidelines. Surgeon investigators are encouraged to continue improving the science in plastic surgery by applying the framework outlined in this article. Improving surgical clinical research should decrease resource waste and provide patients with improved evidence-based care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35436246
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009151
pii: 00006534-202206000-00047
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1224e-1233eInformations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure:None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to report. No funding was received for this work.
Références
Brody H. The doctor’s dilemma. BMJ. 2002;325:721.
Shaw GB. The doctor’s dilemma. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:910–915; discussion 915.
Bryan-Brown CW, Dracup K. Communicating the evidence. Am J Crit Care 1998;7:330–331.
Smith JL. Sir Arbuthnot Lane, chronic intestinal stasis, and autointoxication. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:365–369.
Graham D, Hamound F, El-Zimaity H, Kim J, Osato M, El-Serag H. Meta-analysis: Proton pump inhibitor or H2-receptor antagonist for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17:1229–1236.
Rifkin WJ, Yang JH, DeMitchell-Rodriguez E, Kantar RS, Diaz-Siso JR, Rodriguez ED. Levels of evidence in plastic surgery research: A 10-year bibliometric analysis of 18,889 publications from 4 major journals. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:220–227.
Moltaji S, Alkhatib AH, Liu H, et al. Introducing knowledge translation to plastic surgery: Turning evidence into practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:760e–769e.
Agee JM, McCarroll HR Jr, Tortosa RD, Berry DA, Szabo RM, Peimer CA. Endoscopic release of the carpal tunnel: A randomized prospective multicenter study. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17:987–995.
Chow JC. Endoscopic release of the carpal ligament: A new technique for carpal tunnel syndrome. Arthroscopy 1989;5:19–24.
Thoma A, Veltri K, Haines T, Duku E. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel decompression. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:1137–1146.
Thoma A, Wong VH, Sprague S, Duku E. A cost-utility analysis of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Can J Plast Surg. 2006;14:15–20.
Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86–89.
Chalkidou K, Appleby J. Eliminating waste in healthcare spending. BMJ. 2017;356:j570.
Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 1989;95(2 Suppl):2S–4S.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. CMAJ. 1981;124:555–558.
Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Task force report: The periodic health examination. CMAJ. 1979;121:1193–1254.
Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson SW, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingston; 2000.
Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC. Why are we so slow to adopt some evidence-based practices? Am Fam Physician 2018;98:709–710.
Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:305–310.
Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Lutz KH, Bhandari M. Does a “level I evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:44.
Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI, et al. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: Part I. Risk of bias and outcomes: Common pitfalls plastic surgeons can overcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:696–706.
Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI, et al. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: Part 2. Funding source, conflict of interest, and sample size in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:453e–461e.
Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 1995;118:459–467.
Thoma A, Sprague S, Voineskos SH, Goldsmith CH, eds. Evidence-Based Surgery: A Guide to Understanding and Interpreting the Surgical Literature. Berlin: Springer Nature; 2019.
Swiatek PR, Chung KC, Mahmoudi E. Surgery and research: A practical approach to managing the research process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:361–366.
Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB, eds. In: Designing Clinical Research. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013:14–22.
Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–A13.
Nollan R, Finout-Overhold E, Stephenson P. Asking compelling clinical questions. Melnyk B, Finout-Overhold E, eds. In: Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
Guyatt G, Drummond R, Meade M, Cook D. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2008.
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.
Mowakket S, Karpinski M, Gallo L, et al. Reporting time horizons in randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: A systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:947e–957e.
Achibald S, Bhandari M, Thoma A, The evidence-based surgery working group. Users’ guides to the surgical literature: How to use an article about a diagnostic test. Can J Surg. 2001;44:17–23.
Thoma A, Cornacchi SD, Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. Evidence-based surgery. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: How to assess an article on health-related quality of life. Can J Surg. 2008;51:215–224.
Thoma A, Kaur MN, Farrokhyar F, et al. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: How to assess an article about harm in surgery. Can J Surg. 2016;59:351–357.
Gallo L, Eskicioglu C, Braga LH, Farrokhyar F, Thoma A. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: How to assess an article using surrogate end points. Can J Surg. 2017;60:280–287.
Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, Duku E, Furlong W. A prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery: Health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:13–26.
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Study designs. 2018. Available at: https://www.cebm.net/2014/04/study-designs/ . Accessed May 29, 2018.
Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, et al. Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2010;251:409–416.
Barkho J, Li YK, Duku E, Thoma A. Ketorolac may increase hematoma risk in reduction mammoplasty: A case-control study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;19:e1699.
Bala MM, Akl EA, Sun X, et al. Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:286–295.
Lubsen J, Kirwan BA. Combined endpoints: can we use them? Stat Med. 2002;21:2959–2970.
Karpinski M, Moltaji S, Baxter C, Murphy J, Petropoulos JA, Thoma A. A systematic review identifying outcomes and outcome measures in Dupuytren’s disease research. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2020;45:513–520.
Copeland A, Gallo L, Weber C, et al. Reporting outcomes and outcome measures in carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis: A systematic review. J Hand Surg Am. 2021;46:65.e1–56.el.
Gallo L, Gallo M, Murphy J, et al. Reporting outcomes and outcome measures in thumb cubital tunnel syndrome: A systematic review. J Hand Surg Am. 2020;45:707–728.ed9.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0. Trials 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. About Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials: Overview. Trials 2011;12:A70.
Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM; BRAVO Steering Group. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1360–1371.
International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement (ICHOM). Patient-centered outcome measures: Start measuring outcomes that matter most to patients. Available at: https://www.ichom.org/standard-sets/ . Accessed October 6, 2020.
Waltho D, Gallo L, Gallo M, et al. Outcomes and outcome measures in breast reduction mammaplasty: A systematic review. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:383–391.
McDowell I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2006.
The COSMIN Initiative. About the COSMIN Initiative. Available at: https://www.cosmin.nl/about/ . Accessed June 30, 2020.
The COSMIN Initiative. COSMIN Database of Systematic Reviews. COSMIN. Available at: https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/database-systematic-reviews/ . Accessed June 30, 2020.
Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten SJ, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: A taxonomy and review. CMAJ. 1989;140:1441–1448.
Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwel PX. Measuring of disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ. 1986;134:889–891.
Krahn M, Bryan S, Lee K, Neumann PJ. Embracing the science of value in health. CMAJ. 2019;191:E733–E736.
Quade ES. A History of Cost-Effectiveness. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation; 1991. Available at: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/730430.pdf . Accessed October 17, 2020.
Thoma A, Xie F, Santos J, Goldsmith CH. Economic Evaluations in Surgery. Thoma A, Sprague S, Voineskos SH, Goldsmith CH, eds. In: Evidence-Based Surgery: A Guide to Understanding and Interpreting the Surgical Literature. Berlin: Springer Nature; 2019:239–254.
Thoma A, McKnight LL. Quality-adjusted life-year as a surgical outcome measure: A primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1279–1287.
Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: History of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:165–178.
Pearson SD. Why the coming debate over the QALY and disability will be different. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2019;47:304–307.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness–The curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796–797.
Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Duku E. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1650–1661.
Equator Network. The EQUATOR Network. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/about-us/ . Accessed June 3, 2019.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000251.
Arundel C, James S, Northgraves M, Booth A. Study reporting guidelines: How valid are they? Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019;14:100343.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–577.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al.; CHEERS Task Force. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013;29:117–122.
Agha RA, Sohrabi C, Mathew G, Franchi T, Kerwan A, O’Neill N; PROCESS Group. The PROCESS 2020 guideline: Updating consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasESeries in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines. Int J Surg. 2020;84:231–235.
Agha RA, Franchi T, Sohrabi C, Mathew G, Kerwan A; SCARE Group. The SCARE 2020 guideline: Updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines. Int J Surg. 2020;84:226–230.
Agha R, Abdall-Razak A, Crossley E, Dowlut N, Iosifidis C, Mathew G; STROCSS Group. STROCSS 2019 guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2019;72:156–165.